By Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Julia Laskorunsky, Natalie Bielenberg ,Lucy Chin and Madison Wadsworth

In response to the global pandemic in 2020, states and the federal government began to make non-routine releases from prison in order to reduce prison populations to allow for social distancing in prison facilities. This report is aimed at describing where such prison releases occurred, the legal mechanisms used to achieve these releases, and the factors within jurisdictions that made non-routine prison releases more or less likely to occur. We write this report, not to examine the national response to the pandemic, but to better understand when and how extraordinary measures may be used to effect prison release, and to determine whether there are lessons from this experience that can be applied to reducing the effects of mass incarceration.

Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2022 , 86p.

By Kaleena J. Burkes , Edward E. Rhine , Jason Robey and Ebony Ruhland

This report provides a comparative analysis of releasing authority chairs' views of the issues and challenges confronting them at two points in time: 1988 and 2015. Drawing from two surveys, one conducted during the tenure of an ACA Parole Task Force that functioned from 1986-1988, along with The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey included above, this publication highlights both change and constancy relative to a wide range of comparative markers including, but not limited to, structured decision tools, prison crowding, and risk aversion, and the myriad factors considered in granting or denying parole.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota. 2017. 38p.

By Ebony Ruhland , Edward E. Rhine , Jason Robey and Kelly Lyn Mitchell

The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice launched a national survey of releasing authorities in March 2015 to each state, and the U.S. Parole Commission. The importance of the survey was underscored by an endorsement from the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI). We are pleased to present the results from this important survey here. This is the first comprehensive survey of parole boards completed in nearly ten years. Its findings provide a rich database for better understanding the policy and practice of paroling authorities. The last survey to be conducted of paroling authorities was in 2007 - 2008. The current report offers an expansion and update of previous surveys. The results summarized throughout the report offer a timely resource for paroling authorities, correctional policy-makers and practitioners, legislators, and those with a public policy interest in sentencing and criminal justice operations. It is our hope that the document and its findings provide key justice system and other stakeholders with an incisive snapshot of the work of paroling authorities across the country in a manner that contributes to a larger conversation about sound and effective parole release and revocation practices.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2016. 56p.

Edited by Madeline M. Carter

The manner in which jurisdictions respond to parole and probation violations should be thoughtful and deliberate. Although each case requires individual decision-making, the response to a given violation should be consistent with policy developed by that jurisdiction. Agency violation policies should be built around such considerations as assessment of risk posed by the offender, case processing requirements, local resource availability, and outcomes desired by the agency for certain types of violations. Agency violation policies guide line staff in making supervisory decisions and assist decision-makers in reaching consistent and equitable dispositions. During the past decade, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) helped 29 jurisdictions address violation issues by providing onsite technical assistance. Many other jurisdictions have expressed interest in receiving such support. Among the lessons learned is that goals, resources, and values differ from one place to another. It is vital that jurisdictions work through a process leading to informed policy options that meet their particular needs. This handbook is built around what we have learned about how agencies effectively address violations policy. Expanding on information and examples from the 29 jurisdictions, this document is designed to lead agency policy teams through a series of activities to help them develop their own set of violation policies. This is a difficult initiative for agencies to take on; however, it is important and essential work, and the resulting agency policy is worth the commitment. I urge agency administrators to use the materials in this handbook to develop probation and parole violation policies that best conform to the needs and resources of their jurisdictions.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2001. 105p.

By Peggy B. Burke

For probation and parole to be effective sanctions, reasonable controls must be placed on offenders. They take the form of either general or special conditions of supervision. Probation and parole officers, courts, and parole boards have always responded to violation of conditions of supervision in good faith, but the responses were often inconsistent and not guided by agency policy or sanctioning philosophy. The typical decision was either to return the offender to supervision with little or no change or to revoke supervision and incarcerate the offender--and nothing in between. In some jurisdictions, more admissions to prisons annually are for probation and parole violations than for all new offenses committed. The National Institute of Corrections has for several years assisted agencies in developing a system of explicit, policy-driven responses to violations of probation and parole. Each jurisdiction has taken a somewhat different approach to problems it identified. This report shares some of what was learned concerning the violation process, potential impact of changes, and some of the tools developed to introduce more policy-driven consistency in responses.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy 1997. 53p.